Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thread for Discussion of AG2004's Keltner Lists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by AG2004 View Post
    However, I do have a question about the way outs were accounted for in the 1860s.

    . . .
    There are two outs in the inning, and Smith, at first, is the sole baserunner. Jones, the batter, hits the ball. It goes to the shortstop, who tosses it to second, who tags Smith out. Baseball-reference lists this as an out for Jones.

    However, given Bulkley's description of what happened in the Reds-Atlantics game, this may have not been the case in the NABBP era. If this happened in the late 1860s, would the scorekeeper have listed this as an out for Smith rather than Jones?
    (emphasis mine) Do you mean a bb-ref feature on scoring rules? I don't know it.

    Yes to the scoring question.
    Runner Smith was put out.
    Leadoff batter next inning is whoever follows Smith --Jones or someone else who batted in this inning; anyway Jones bats again next inning.

    On the double play in the preceding inning, one out for batter Smith and one for that runner.
    Who leads off the next inning depends on the order of the two putouts.

    --
    Generally we don't have a report of plate appearances or times left on base but there is an identity for every player-game
    PA = Outs (Hands Lost) + Left on Base + Runs
    because every batter-runner in the inning is either put out or left on base or he scores.
    add: In modern baseball we have this identity only for every team-game

    I do know that, in cricket, the baserunner who is thrown out is given the blame for the out; since early baseball statistics were based on cricket statistics, it may have been possible that the baserunner was blamed for the out way back then.
    I'm unsure about the connotation of blame, but yes that was the only negative statistic they tallied; none for the batter unless also put out as in the double play. Actually HL "hands lost" is "put outs" for baserunners, comparable to PO "put outs" for fielders, where the second baseman gets the putout for catching the shortstop's throw while the shortstop usually deserves most of the credit.

    If this is the case, we may have to rethink our evaluations, since a team's leadoff hitter will be unfairly penalized by this habit. (Bulkley lists George Wright and Dickey Pearce as the leadoff hitters for the two clubs on June 14, 1870.)
    I think your point is that leadoff does not bat into many of the modern "6-4, fielders choice" plays, which balance for batters and runner in the aggregate. Leadoff bats with many fewer runners on base and the eight teammates on average bat with slightly more runners on base.

    I will be interested to know any of your re-thinking.

    Probably we need a bank of play-by-play accounts to analyse this well during the next decade. Fortunately complete play-by-play games are not necessary; complete pbp innings are valuable.
    Last edited by Paul Wendt; 03-27-2008, 09:10 PM. Reason: add

    Comment


    • #62
      For 1872 and 1874, the Retrosheet web encyclopedia now includes a lot of game data: box scores, dailies, and splits. For example Joe Start batting third and fielding first in every game for the 1874 Mutuals.

      But no play-by-play. There are many complete games and scads of complete innings in the newspapers but it may all be too far short of full season coverage to justify spending Retro-volunteer time. Until a few years ago Retrosheet published data only for practically complete play-by-play seasons.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post

        Originally posted by AG2004
        If this is the case, we may have to rethink our evaluations, since a team's leadoff hitter will be unfairly penalized by this habit. (Bulkley lists George Wright and Dickey Pearce as the leadoff hitters for the two clubs on June 14, 1870.)
        I think your point is that leadoff does not bat into many of the modern "6-4, fielders choice" plays, which balance for batters and runner in the aggregate. Leadoff bats with many fewer runners on base and the eight teammates on average bat with slightly more runners on base.

        I will be interested to know any of your re-thinking.

        Probably we need a bank of play-by-play accounts to analyse this well during the next decade. Fortunately complete play-by-play games are not necessary; complete pbp innings are valuable.
        That was part of my point. From a modern-day perspective, the players who batted into the "6-4, fielders choice" plays more often than others would benefit from the way outs were scored back then. Under modern scoring rules, they would have been assigned more outs than they actually received back then.

        On the other hand, those baserunners who were caught in the "6-4, fielders choice" plays don't do so well. While they would not be assigned the out under current rules, they were assigned the out under 1860s rules. This would hurt our evaluation of leadoff hitters, since, being out at second on fielder's choice plays more often than other players, they would get more outs of this type.

        The end result? If we were to apply modern scoring rules to these games, the outs recorded by leadoff hitters would tend to decrease, and the outs recorded by other hitters would tend to increase.

        Unfortunately, we would need research to determine how much of a difference this would make.

        ----
        Do you mean a bb-ref feature on scoring rules? I don't know it.
        Baseball-reference.com uses its own formula to calculate outs in the "special batting" section of a player profile:

        Outs = AB - H + CS + GIDP + SH + SF

        This calculation is for their own sabermetric purposes, and indicates why a baserunner caught in a fielder's choice play would not be credited with an out in their system; with one AB and one H, the net result is zero.

        Comment


        • #64
          A few years ago, an older SABR member told me about some scorecards in his family, from Providence RI in the mid-1880s. He sent digital copies for the Retrosheet vault. The preprinted form was essentially the same as a simple modern one, mainly a grid of squares without subdivisions, at least 9x9 for each team. The simpler system of scoring marked only 1 (run), O, or L (out or left) in every square, using one column for each inning. Slightly more advanced: 1, {O1 O2, O3} for the three outs in sequence, and L. These were scorecards filled by fans and theose systems must have been out of fashion, maintained only by fans who learned it more than a decade earlier.

          ==
          Originally posted by AG2004 View Post
          Baseball-reference.com uses its own formula to calculate outs in the "special batting" section of a player profile:

          Outs = AB - H + CS + GIDP + SH + SF

          This calculation is for their own sabermetric purposes, and indicates why a baserunner caught in a fielder's choice play would not be credited with an out in their system; with one AB and one H, the net result is zero.
          OK, the glossary. I know the site very well and send corrections to owner/editor Sean Forman but I haven't looked at that. Nor used the "Outs" myself, although I know of some people who calculate Base:Out ratios.

          I agree on all points.

          Let me extend the observations:
          - This measure counts one for a sacrifice hit, successful or not.
          Here it matches the spirit of 1860s scoring, not the modern. The sacrifice bunt was not in use then but anyone who "gave himself up for the team" would have been debited. --including the man who gets in a rundown between first and second while a teammate scores from third, whose out is simply lost today. I prefer the modern. Better we should keep more complete "SH statistics" for batters so that they can be reassigned to the manager by anyone who wishes to do so.
          - This measure counts one for reaching first base on error.
          Here it matches the modern score-keeping (since the invention of times at bat and batting average) and clashes with the 1860s. First base on error was common, much more common than 1908, not to mention 2008. But even today the 1860s scoring has a lot in its favor.
          - This measure counts two for grounding into a double play.
          Here it matches the modern and contradicts the 1860s, and the fielding play 6-4-3 is so routine today that we all blame the batter for both outs. Striking out into double play counts one against the batter and one against the runner, which matches the 1860s scoring and modern notions of blame. Why don't we keep track of FIDP. Some ex-ballplayer announcers blame the runner whenever he is doubled up, "you just can't go if the ball doesn't drop". Official scorers could track baserunner outs and make the call whether to give the batter a double play or give the batter a plain out and the baserunner a runout.

          Where the 1860s scoring and modern scoring do not match, I prefer the 1860s for BE (base on error) and FIDP (fly into double play); the modern for GIDP and FC (fielders choice, at least grounding into a forceout). Today, I guess, GIDP and FC are more common than FIDP and BE, even if we do split the FC and make some of them runouts. Anyway, I don't support any reform here until we reform by counting all the baserunner outs.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by AG2004 View Post
            I probably should have taken a better look at the outs/game data that I copied down.
            Marshall Wright's "league history" books are essentially year-by-year compilations of team and player statistics for minor leagues, printed in rather small numbers and priced around $50 in paperback. Even used copies are commonly available for sale at or above list price.

            At this moment, however fetchbooks.info cites one copy of NABBP at $10 two weeks ago (that's the teaser) and links to one copy at $20.

            Wright, The N.A.B.B.P., 1857-1870 (McFarland 2000) isn't a great departure from the other league books. It covers fewer years and more teams than the others, with fewer and less complete player statistics, usually Games, Outs, and Runs only. It provides game logs (date, opponent, score) for many teams each season, which is worthless or priceless.

            Comment


            • #66
              Charley Jones

              15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

              Jones is best known for being blacklisted. On September 2, 1880, Jones demanded his pay for the full month of August, as his contract said that the August salary was technically due on August 31. However, Boston was on a road trip, and the practice at the time was to advance small payments on the road, and pay the balance only when the team returned home.
              Indeed. Cleveland management followed the practice in 1899 after essentially abandoning the city of Cleveland in August. I checked a Cleveland newspaper for October and found. Instead of the usual Frank has gone home to Detroit, Sam and Harry have joined the Griffith team on tour in the South, . . . it's[list of ten?] players are still in town waiting for paychecks. Some planned a lawsuit but there was some sympathy with the Robisons, too, and no one did sue despite the long delay.

              After Boston refused to pay him the full amount, Jones refused to play the next day. Boston then released Jones, and he was expelled from the league. In 1882, Jones was signed by the Cincinnati AA team, but the AA decided to honor the blacklist, and Jones did not play in the AA until 1883.
              Jones sued for his 1880 salary and won enough to by a laundromat in Cincinnati. So he returned to his old stomping ground, played semipro or amateur ball, and laundered.

              Jones had been in trouble before. In 1877, he left the Cincinnati NL team for Chicago, as he thought his original team was about to declare bankruptcy and fold.
              I believe the team did declare bankruptcy and reorganize. The NL officially recognized a new club and afterward approved standings and statistics featuring 5 teams that played 48 games each. The decisions to recognize all Cincinnati games and a 6-team league that played 60 games each, and to treat the two Cincinnati clubs as one, all predate the 1951 Official Encyclopedia. I don't know whether the league or historians acted first.

              There’s the further twist: How good was Jones in 1874 and 1875? I don’t know.
              Over at the Hall of Merit where I presented much of the 1874-75 information on Jones, I vowed to learn more and compile some of it in more detail. I still hope to do so while I have access to ILL at Harvard U, which probably means this spring after Memorial Day. Last summer I visited Keokuk, Iowa, for one Friday afternoon at the public library. Among other things I wrote down the dates of all baseball coverage in a scrapbook of clippings from the local newspaper.

              Comment


              • #67
                Rabbit Maranville

                "Maranville is in Cooperstown, but he’s not in the BBFHOF."

                That should be "not in the Hall of Merit"

                In the latest HOM election (2008) Maranville is 70th (tie) with 27 points, which is below the range where the election results provide a plausible guide to what the voters think of the candidates.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Cincinnati 1877, continued (Charley Jones)

                  selected from The Baseball Chronology, internet edition at baseballlibrary.com

                  1877
                  June 10
                  The St. Louis Browns and Cincinnati Reds stage a Sunday exhibition game‚ the only Sunday game between NL teams that would be played until 1892.
                  [at St. Louis]
                  Lip Pike resigns as Cincinnati captain and is succeeded by Bob Addy.
                  [today we call them managers - captains of teams without professional managers, not all captains]

                  June 18
                  Lacking the funds to start their scheduled eastern trip‚ the Cincinnati club disbands.
                  [after returning from Chicago, St. Louis, and Louisville]

                  June 21
                  Cincinnati stockholders move to reorganize the club. Some trouble could arise if Chicago‚ which has signed Jimmy Hallihan and Charley Jones‚ will not return the players. Hallinan was to have played for the Whites today‚ but he broke a finger in pre-game practice.

                  June 25
                  Hard luck continues to dog the Cincinnati club‚ as a heavy windstorm nearly destroys the pavilion at the Cincinnati Base Ball Park.

                  June 29
                  Chicago releases Jones back to Cincinnati but retains Hallinan.

                  June 30
                  Cincinnati signs P Candy Cummings‚ formerly of the Live Oaks of Lynn. Cummings will join the NL club but will still serve as president of the IA.
                  [over the hill but I'm sure he cost money]

                  July 3
                  The reorganized Cincinnati Red Stockings reappear in action versus the Louisville Grays‚ losing 6-3. Whether or not their games will count in the NL standings will not be resolved until the NL meeting in December.
                  [still in Cincinnati, having skipped the eastern trip. There are only two eastern teams so the Reds are not far behind in games played.]

                  August 10
                  Cincinnati's new owners demonstrate their determination to field a strong team next year by announcing the signing of Cal McVey for 1878.
                  [mid-season signings were common - McVey will be the captain/manager]
                  Last edited by Paul Wendt; 04-26-2008, 08:27 AM. Reason: add August 10

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Keltner request

                    Akira Bessho--He seems to have some strong support around here. All I know of him is Jim's write up that provides a projection (I don't fully understand) and mentions that his most similars are all HOFers. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be a lot out there on this guy.

                    If you could add him to the long list, that'd be great.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Willie Randolph (no votes)
                      Five members of the Hall of Merit are not in the BBFHOF and have not been on the verge of my ballot. He is the one where the Keltner perspective would be most welcome.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Apologies for the delays.

                        For Bessho (and other Japanese players), my best source of information is Jim Albright. Several people at baseball think factory are providing MLEs for Negro League players, but the MLEs for Japanese players would be coming from Albright's work. I can't do much to add to his arguments; any lists would be largely rearrangements of his data.

                        I'd also like to do Lists for the remaining HOM players. From a preliminary overview, Randolph's main weakness would be his season-by-season win shares totals. 31-23-23 for his best three seasons is not a good sign, and he had a bad season in 1981, so giving him credit for missed games wouldn't help him. The DH rule hurts his WS marks, but, after looking at baseball-reference, I'm inclined to believe that the real problem was his durability. Randolph was missing too many games each season, and the win share system, unlike the OPS+ calculation, reflects that.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Not to burden you AG2004, but you can add to the list other than the HOMers not elected by the BBF crowd the following requests from the thread: those in post #54 in this thread except Oliva and Singleton
                          Last edited by jalbright; 06-01-2008, 05:59 AM.
                          Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                          Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                          A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Not to burden you AG2004, but if this is the time to take a deep breath and look around . . .

                            here are the leading candidates for election to the Hall of Merit this fall (Rickey Henderson plus two).

                            Reggie Smith
                            Bucky Walters

                            Tommy Leach
                            (John McGraw)
                            (Dick Redding)
                            (Kirby Puckett)
                            Bob Johnson

                            Three are in the BBF HOF (parens). You have covered Leach and Johnson . That leaves Smith and Walters.

                            I haven't mentioned Smith before because I suppose I know the answer. As you have since explained for Randolph, he played too many 120- and 140-game seasons to compete well in single season win shares which are the materielle for your answers to several questions on the list. I haven't mentioned Walters before because WWII pitchers are not my cup of tea. But my mind can be changed and there are others.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              I see you've voted for Spotswood Poles. I've been close to pulling the trigger on him, but haven't quite been able to bring myself to do so. I'd love to hear your reasoning behind your support for him. Thanks.
                              Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                              Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                              A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                If you're able to shed any light on how to separate Ross Barnes health issues from the effect of the change in the fair/foul rule, your take on him would be appreciated. If not, others still may be interested, but his case really comes down to that issue for me.
                                Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                                Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                                A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X